It really won’t matter much for General Motors whether its 2009 bankruptcy shields it from liability for old Chevrolet Cobalts and other cars recalled for faulty ignition switches and now linked to 13 deaths and 31 crashes — more than a decade after the first signs of trouble were spotted.

GM will face judgment in the court of public opinion now — and the survival of the company may well rest on how CEO Mary Barra and her team handle, or bungle, the trials of the next few months.

This recall crisis may not prove to be a crushing blow for GM, if managed smartly with urgency and transparency. But anyone who tells you it’s just a minor nuisance that will fade quickly is either dreaming, or has a long position in GM stock and is trying to talk the price up. GM stock gained 54 cents Tuesday to close at $35.17 a share, but is still down 14% since the start of the year.

There will be Congressional hearings, lawsuits galore, gut-wrenching TV reports on victims of fatal crashes, cheap shots from bailout haters. All this for an outfit that was just getting its legs back and breaking in a new CEO after cheating death and shedding government ownership.

Whatever the outcome for GM itself, the entire automobile industry, especially the far-flung and highly stressed network of component makers, will feel the impact for decades to come.

“This will be a textbook case in product liability law because it has everything,” said Thomas Manganello, a partner in the Southfield-based law firm Warner, Norcross & Judd, specializing in auto supplier contracts, warranty issues and product liability. By “everything” he was talking about a giant automaker in GM; a parts supplier, Delphi; the bankruptcies of both companies, and the actions — or inaction — of top federal regulators at the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Moreover, the ignition switch recall case has exploded onto the national scene during a period of tremendous strain in the auto industry supply chain.

Amid the severe recession and bailouts of GM and Chrysler, many auto parts makers collapsed. But when industry sales bounced back starting in 2010, surviving suppliers were soon flush with business, running plants flat-out on two or three shifts. Yet the big automakers were also asking parts makers to accept contract terms that included more liability for defects, while also pressing suppliers to make big investments in new plants and equipment closer to car and truck assembly plants.

Meanwhile, the growth of Korean brands Hyundai and Kia and the start-up of a new Volkswagen plant in Tennessee — at a time when all carmakers are updating models more often — has led to a 30%-40% surge in the number of new vehicle launches during the next couple of years. “This has put a lot of pressure on the supply base in engineering and tooling,” said Michael Robinet, managing director of IHS Automotive’s consulting practice.

That kind of pressure, as any veteran of auto manufacturing will tell you, can often trigger quality control issues.

So it was against that kind of industry backdrop that Barra and Mark Reuss, GM’s global product development, faced reporters for the first time since the ignition switch recall furor broke, in a briefing at the automaker’s Renaissance Center headquarters in Detroit.

Barra had videotaped a wooden, scripted 4-minute message to GM employees Monday that the company posted on its website, but Tuesday’s briefing was the first time she and Reuss had taken questions publicly.

Encouragingly for GM, they appear to be striking the right tone: apologetic, accountable, prepared to face whatever music they must in U.S. courtrooms and the halls of Congress.

They didn’t claim to have all the answers yet on who knew what when in the GM hierarchy, and didn’t sound in a hurry to find a mid-level scapegoat or three to fire or discipline.

Barra also didn’t promise — yet, anyway — to accept liability for accidents that occurred prior to GM’s federally greased Chapter 11 bankruptcy. She also didn’t promise to set up a fund for victims, but she didn’t rule it out, either.

“We will do what’s right,” she said, after GM completes its internal investigation. That’s the correct approach.

GM may very well have legal standing under bankruptcy law to escape liability for crashes that predated its exit from Chapter 11.

But GM is also a company still licking wounds from its near-death experience, still trying to win back car buyers who had been disappointed with past products or disgusted by bailouts.

Barra & Co. will not win friends or new customers by leaning on a technicality to evade the consequences of past mistakes.

It’s way early to predict the outcome or cost of this crisis for GM, but the hunch here is that Barra may stand up under the heat as well or better than any of her immediate predecessors would have.

Contact Tom Walsh: 313-223-4430 or twalsh@freepress.com, also follow him on Twitter @TomWalsh_freep.